uganda’s agriculture at crossroads, ufaas aannual workshop oct 2014

UGANDA’S AGRICULTURE AT CROSSROADS: CRITICAL ISSUES IN AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION

SERVICES

Uganda Forum for agricultural Advisory ServicesWebsite: www.networking.afaas-africa.org

National annual stakeholders’ Workshop at Grand Imperial Hotel, Kampala

29-30 th October 2014

By Dr Margaret Najjingo MangheniAssociate Prof. Makerere Univ/Chairperson

UFAAS

http://www.networking.afaas-africa.org/

• The role of agricultural extension in agricultural transformation

• Ongoing reforms in agricultural extension in Uganda

• Critical issues in Uganda’s Agric extension system

• Recommendations

Uganda Forum for agricultural Advisory ServicesWebsite: www.ufaas-ugandacf.org

http://www.ufaas-ugandacf.org/

Uganda cannot significantly reduce poverty, increase per capita incomes, and transform into a modern economy without serious focused attention on agricultural development.



Uganda’s agriculture facing challenges:• Funding—low funding (about 3% of the

budget)• High population growth• Climate change and declining soil fertility• Poor agric markets• Poor, uneducated, aging farmers• Low application of scientific improved

technologies

• Human capital is the single most important resource that Uganda has. The human capital manages all other capitals.

• Uganda must invest in the over 70% of its population deriving a livelihood from agriculture

• This population needs Information, knowledge, skills, technologies, institutions, partnerships and networks, services.

• Agricultural extension services have a key role in this.



However, currently agricultural extension is accorded low value.

Policy makers and politicians are prioritizing mere distribution on agricultural inputs over and above development of farmer capacity for innovation and appropriate use of improved inputs and other technologies.

(i) Disbanding of NAADS structure at district and sub county levels and laying off all staff

(ii) Transfer of the NAADS extension functions to an Extension Directorate of MAAIF at national level and to the local governments to eliminate the old parallel extension systems



(iii) Changing the mandate of NAADS secretariat to procurement of inputs and value addition equipment to support strategic interventions in agriculture such as seedlings and breeding stock,

(iv) Deployment of army at constituency level to distribute agricultural inputs, monitor and ensure that government interventions reach the beneficiaries.



1. It is not clear how the key institutions will relate to achieve the desired (i.e. NAADS secretariat, Army, Operation Wealth Creation, local governments, Extension directorate).



There is piecemeal implementation as opposed to an integrated service delivery approach--While money has been disbursed even during this financial year to run NAADS secretariat and Operation Wealth Creation programs, other



We are concerned that Uganda is yet again spending money on piecemeal interventions when lessons from PMA are clear that holistic interventions in all services essential for agricultural transformation (advisory services, research, inputs, value addition, market access, microfinance) is essential for optimum returns on investment.



2. Legal framework—NAADS mandate changed without changing the NAADS Act 2001

No official strategy document and operational guidelines have been published. Approaches, strategies, roles and implementation guidelines are not clear.



3. NAADS secretariat has been retained with a new mandate. However, implementation related issues that led to failure of the old NAADS have not been deliberately addressed, e.g:

(i) Institutional conflicts between NAADS and MAAIF which undermined harmonized action (disparity in funding levels)



The Executive Director NAADS earns a monthly salary of 15 million while the new Director of Extension will earn 2.4 million. This wide disparity which was a source of conflict and demotivation for staff of MAAIF and local governments has been maintained.



(ii) Farmer institution development approach which did not yield strong autonomous farmer organizations with capacity to perform their assigned roles

(iii) Piecemeal interventions as opposed to an integrated holistic service delivery approach

(iv) Capacity development particularly of the private sector.



4.Staffing and capacity issues:(i)NAADS staff laid off without clear plans and a budget to recruit extension staff for the local governments. The whole budget for NAADS is now spent at the centre to procure strategic inputs.(ii)Key functions like technical advice for farmers, disease control are unfunded.(iii)Districts have very few or no extension staff.



14 out 112 districts had no extension staff as at 1st March 2013:Agago, Alebtong, Amudat, Bududa, Buhweju, Butambala, Kalungu,Kiryandongo, Kyankwanzi, Namayingo, Otuke, Rubirizi, Serere, Zombo

A vast majority of sub-counties have not even one extension staff.



District levelDistrict level

Sub-county level Sub-county level (excluding Fisheries, Ass.

Fisheries Officers, Entomologists & Asst. Entomologists)

5. There is no arrangement to manage the assets that belonged to NAADS (e.g vehicles and motor cycles). Many of these are grounded and for a few that are working, there is no proper guidelines and resources for on their management.



6. The approach of government giving farmers input handouts is neither feasible nor sustainable—•It creates a dependency syndrome among farmers

•It is too costly

•Absence of a transparent equitable distribution system



• The mass distribution of inputs without addressing the country’s capacity of seed and stock production will not solve but rather escalate the problem of fake inputs.

• The uncontrolled distribution of inputs might result into negative repercussions to the long term work of NARO concerning pests and disease control.



7. During the whole process of the reforms the farmers were not consulted. The role and place of the farmer institutions and organs is not yet clear.

8.The sudden laying off of the professional extension workers has served as a de motivation to staff who had a commitment to serve the sector. What is the fate of the professionals in the whole arrangement?


9. The role of the army:(i)Their role not clear--Although the official position is that they monitor the work of NAADS in the distribution of inputs, some project leaders say they are to implement along the whole value chain(ii)The official position is not realistic since there is no frontline extension staff to implement. This implies that the army will have to distribute the inputs itself.


(iii) Army has insufficient capacity to perform any of these roles. They are distributing inputs without any technical support from qualified agricultural extension staff.

(iv) Operation Wealth Creation rather than MAAIF seems to be directing the army involvement in agricultural service delivery. We are concerned that OWC does not have the required technical expertise to direct this effort


(v) The approach used to select input beneficiaries and monitor the processes is not clear.

Which farmers have access and which ones don’t?

Are farmers empowered to give feedback to the army and hold them accountable?


10. It is not clear when the Directorate of Extension under MAAIF will be operationalized. In the meantime, the extension function has no leadership and direction.

Agricultural extension is at crossroads or indeed in a crisis with serious negative implications for Uganda’s agriculture.


1. The new agricultural extension approach should be spelt out by MAAIF with clear implementation manuals where the actors and their roles are well explained, required capacities are determined, after which capacity development can be undertaken in a holistic manner targeting all actors.

2. Deployment of the army should be preceded by adequate training and issuing of guidelines by MAAIF.


3. Government should equitably facilitate all the different actors/arms of government to perform their envisaged roles in the reform and to promote a team approach.

Sufficient numbers of extension staff should be employed and they should be equally facilitated and retooled, oriented to the new approach/roles.


4. The mechanism through which the farmers will be supported to organize so as to demand for services, give feedback on the performance and quality of services, undertake collective marketing among others should be clearly streamlined.


5. The ministry (MAAIF) should come up with a concrete roadmap for key actions that will guide:–The repealing of the NAADS Act, –The operationalization of the extension

directorate,–The recruitment of sufficient number

motivated, efficient and result-oriented extension workers


–The inputs delivery and distribution mechanisms.

–The continued functionality of farmer institutions and organs

–The utilization of the remaining NAADS facilities and equipment at the district and sub county levels


•The reforms are reversing any gains of the past without adding any significant value. In the current form, they are largely disruptive. They don’t provide remedies to the root causes of the problems they seek to solve.

•The glaring vacuum left by the reform shows that government was not adequately prepared for it.

It is business worse than usual.


For the reforms to succeed, the fundamentals will have to be addressed, namely:

(i)Sufficient qualified technical personnel at all levels;

(ii)Optimal budget with sufficient operational funds at field level;

(iii)Operationalization of well coordinated complementary services to extension as envisaged under PMA (notably agro input supply, marketing, agro processing and value addition, research).


• The disjointed institutional arrangements being proposed may

not offer the much needed coordination and coherence.

• We need professional standards, ethics, and an agricultural extension policy to guide the sub-sector.


Thank you for your attention


uganda’s agriculture at crossroads, ufaas aannual workshop oct 2014

Government & Nonprofit